A Dispositional Trait Framework Elucidates Differences between Interview and Questionnaire Measurement of Childhood Attention Problems Assessment of Youth Attention Problems
A Dispositional Trait Framework Elucidates Differences between Interview and Questionnaire Measurement of Childhood Attention Problems Assessment of Youth Attention Problems
复制标题
性格特质框架阐明了访谈和问卷调查之间的差异儿童注意力问题的测量青少年注意力问题的评估
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
--
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Michelle M. Martel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kathrin Herzhoff;J. Tackett;Michelle M. Martel
目前，没有一个单一的注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）措施完全和全面地涵盖所有ADHD诊断标准（Anastopoulos，2001）。这是一个显着的局限性，在评估注意力问题，并建议需要进行研究，调和的信息差异，旨在衡量相同或相似的结构。例如，通过分析与第三结构相关的测量的差异，第三结构可以提供启发性背景，对照该背景来观察并最终调和相同注意力问题结构的测量之间的差异。因此，本研究的目的是利用一个性格特质框架来说明两种广泛使用的注意力问题测量方法评估ADHD结构的差异。和性格特质问卷调查。低尽责性/努力控制和高神经质/消极情感都与CBCL注意力问题评分有很强的独特关联，而只有低尽责性/努力控制与临床访谈评估的DSM-IV-TR ADHD症状有很强的独特关联。这些判别气质特质的相关性，帮助我们理解的性质，注意力问题的结构评估的每一个措施，在研究和应用环境中的跨措施整合的实践具有重要意义。注意力缺陷/多动障碍（ADHD）是最常诊断的儿童行为障碍之一（Merikangas等人，2010年）。根据精神障碍诊断和统计手册（第4版，文本修订; DSM-IV-TR;美国精神病学协会[阿帕]，2000）。像许多儿童疾病一样，ADHD的评估受到多种基于评估的挑战（Anastopoulos，2001）。研究人员和临床医生在评估儿童精神病理学时经常从多个信息提供者那里收集多种信息，以克服其中的一些挑战，然而来自不同信息提供者和测量方法的信息往往产生巨大的差异，这进一步使儿童疾病的评估复杂化-ADHD的其他并发症特别包括缺乏一个全面评估诊断标准的单一ADHD测量方法（Anastopoulos，2001年）。因此，需要了解如何联合收割机和协调措施的ADHD是目前的ADHD评估中最紧迫的问题之一。在本研究中，我们的目的是说明的性质的基本结构评估两个常见的ADHD措施，通过绘制性格特质框架，这已被发现在过去的研究中有用的ADHD。专家建议通过临床访谈和评级量表来评估ADHD。
At present, no single attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) measure completely and comprehensively captures all ADHD diagnostic criteria (Anastopoulos, 2001). This represents a notable limitation in the assessment of attention problems and suggests the need for research that reconciles differences in information across measures purporting to measure the same or similar constructs. For example, by analyzing differences in measures in relation to a third construct, the third construct can provide an illuminative backdrop against which to view and ultimately reconcile differences between measures of the same attention problem construct. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to draw on a dispositional trait framework to illustrate differences in the ADHD construct assessed by 2 widely used attention problem measures. and dispositional trait questionnaires about their child. Both low Conscientiousness/Effortful Control and high Neuroticism/ Negative Affect showed strong, unique associations with the CBCL Attention Problem score, whereas only low Conscientiousness/Effortful Control showed a strong, unique association with DSM–IV–TR ADHD symptoms assessed by clinical interview. These discriminant dispositional trait correlates help us understand the nature of the attention problem construct as assessed by each measure, with important implications for the practice of cross-measure integration in both research and applied settings. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most frequently diagnosed child behavioral disorders (Merikangas et al., 2010). ADHD is characterized by symptoms of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM– IV–TR; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000). Like many childhood disorders, assessment of ADHD suffers from multiple assessment-based challenges (Anastopoulos, 2001). Researchers and clinicians frequently collect multiple kinds of information from multiple informants in the assessment of childhood psychopathology to overcome some of these challenges, yet information from different informants and measures often yields vast discrepancies that further complicates assessment of child disor-Additional complications for ADHD in particular include the absence of a single ADHD measure that comprehensively assesses the diagnostic criteria (Anastopoulos, 2001). Thus, the need to understand how to combine and reconcile measures of ADHD represents one of the most pressing issues in current ADHD assessment. In the present study, we aimed to illustrate the nature of the underlying construct assessed by two common ADHD measures by drawing on dispositional trait frameworks , which have been found useful in past studies of ADHD. Experts recommend assessing ADHD with both a clinical interview and a rating scale scales can be used to assess …
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Marcus, David K.;Barry, Tammy D.
通讯作者：
Barry, Tammy D.
DOI：
10.1097/00004583-200001000-00014
发表时间：
2000-01-01
影响因子：
13.3
作者：
Shaffer, D;Fisher, P;Schwab-Stone, ME
通讯作者：
Schwab-Stone, ME
DOI：
10.1176/ajp.151.11.1673
发表时间：
1994-10
期刊：
The American journal of psychiatry
影响因子：
--
作者：
B. Lahey;B. Applegate;K. McBurnett;J. Biederman;L. Greenhill;G. Hynd;R. Barkley;J. Newcorn;P. Jensen;J. Richters;B. Garfinkel;Lynn Kerdyk;P. Frick;T. Ollendick;D. Perez;E. L. Hart;I. Waldman;D. Shaffer
通讯作者：
B. Lahey;B. Applegate;K. McBurnett;J. Biederman;L. Greenhill;G. Hynd;R. Barkley;J. Newcorn;P. Jensen;J. Richters;B. Garfinkel;Lynn Kerdyk;P. Frick;T. Ollendick;D. Perez;E. L. Hart;I. Waldman;D. Shaffer
“小五”：探索青春期男孩人格五因素模型的法则网络。
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
John,OP;Caspi,A;Robins,RW;Moffitt,TE;Stouthamer-Loeber,M
通讯作者：
Stouthamer-Loeber,M
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Sheese, Brad E.;Rothbart, Mary K.;Fraundorf, Scott H.
通讯作者：
Fraundorf, Scott H.